A frequent criticism of instant runoff voting is the fact candidates who beat all others in head-to-head competitions can actually lose.  But if such candidates win all the time, there would be unintended consequences.

A common criticism of instant runoff voting is that IRV does not necessarily produce a “majority winner.”  This criticism is misleading, and does not recognize the true meaning of a “majority winner” in any given election.

Port Chester's historic Board of Trustees election this past month has drawn national attention for its use of cumulative voting. But the amount of misinformation found in the media coverage is high, so FairVote would like to correct some of the most common fallacies.

Everyone can agree that the higher the turnout, the better.  But then why do we accept runoff elections where the winners often receive fewer votes than they did in the initial primary?  There must be a better way...